Bill S-15 (Historical)

Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act

An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001

Part 1 of this enactment amends the Canada National Parks Act to create Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada.
It also amends the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to prohibit drilling for petroleum in Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada or within one nautical mile seaward of Sable Island’s low-water mark, to restrict surface access rights provided for under that Act and to provide for the issuance of licences and authorizations with respect to activities that may be carried out in Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada.
Finally, it makes consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.
Part 2 amends the Canada National Parks Act to provide that the dedication of the national parks of Canada to the people of Canada is subject to any Act of Parliament.
It also amends the description of the commercial zones for the Community of Field in Yoho National Park of Canada in Schedule 4 to that Act and of the leasehold boundary of the Marmot Basin Ski Area in Jasper National Park of Canada in Schedule 5 to that Act.

Bill S-15—Time Allocation

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #741

Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from May 31 consideration of the motion that Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment has 18 minutes left for debate on this issue.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. Chief Government Whip for his support. It is such a pleasure to be here tonight.

I was actually quite impressed with some of the testimony that came out the last time we were speaking to this bill, on Friday. I have geared my speech to address some of the issues that came up. I looked a bit through the Senate committee testimony that came up as well as some of our technical briefing documents, and I hope to address some of my colleagues' concerns that were raised on Friday.

The critical points that were raised on Friday related to some of the issues around seismic activities on the island as well as aboriginal consultations and inclusion within the bill. Questions were raised around Parks Canada consulting the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia. I can assure this House that we are taking important measures with respect to the Mi'kmaq, that we have consulted and will continue to consult them and that Parks Canada is continuing to work with them.

In designating Sable Island as a national park reserve, the Government of Canada would be protecting the asserted aboriginal rights entitled to this area. A national park reserve designation, which is clearly defined under the Canada National Parks Act, is used where there are outstanding claims by aboriginal peoples regarding aboriginal rights and titles and these claims have been accepted by Canada for negotiation.

In her remarks, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona expressed her concern that, while the preamble refers to the Mi'kmaq's asserted rights and title, the bill itself does not. I just want to assure the House that this is standard when it comes to designating national park reserves under the Canada National Parks Act, in that specific reference is not made to the aboriginal people claiming rights and title to a specific national park reserve. Rather, it is the designation as a reserve that protects their asserted rights. When it comes to concerns over the integrity of the national parks system, the Canada National Parks Act is also clear that a national park reserve is protected just as much as a national park, all the while respecting the assertions of aboriginal or treaty rights. It is not a lesser category of national park. Parks such as Nahanni in the north, Mingan Archipelago in Quebec and the Gulf Islands in British Columbia are all currently designated as national park reserves while we work with the aboriginal people who use these areas to finalize an agreement through which they would co-operatively manage these areas in collaboration with Parks Canada.

To be clear, we will not move to designate Sable Island as a national park of Canada until we have concluded our consultations and negotiations with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia.

In fact, to illustrate this point, when our government first took office in 2006, Labrador's Torngat Mountains was then designated as a national park reserve. That year, the hon. member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove signed a park impacts and benefit statement with the president of Makivik Corporation representing the Nunavik Inuit of northern Quebec who had a claim to the area in Labrador covered by the park reserve. Only with the signing of that agreement did the government move to formally transition the reserve to what is now the Torngat Mountains National Park of Canada.

With respect to consultations, in May 2010, Parks Canada, as required under the consultation protocol established under the made-in-Nova Scotia process, wrote to the Assembly of Nova Scotia Chiefs, the Nova Scotia Office of Aboriginal Affairs and the Native Council of Nova Scotia requesting consultation on plans to designate Sable Island as a national park.

In November 2010, the Mi'kmaq people wrote to Parks Canada confirming that they were in agreement that Sable Island be designated as a national park by bringing it under the Canada National Parks Act by an act of Parliament. They also stated that they looked forward to working together with Parks Canada in the development of a management plan for Sable Island and other opportunities for the Mi'kmaq to be meaningfully and actively engaged in the vision and management direction for Sable Island as a national park.

Consultation with the Mi'kmaq during the designation process would continue until the final step in the establishment process, namely designation of Sable Island as a national park. Once a final accord had been negotiated by Canada, Nova Scotia and the Mi'kmaq through the made-in-Nova Scotia process, Parks Canada would undertake the necessary steps as defined under the final accord to transition Sable Island from a national park reserve to a national park.

Parks Canada enjoys a productive relationship with the Mi'kmaq. Parks Canada and the Mi'kmaq are close to concluding a contribution agreement, the purpose of which is to enable the Mi'kmaq to conduct research and consult with member communities to develop a thorough understanding of the cultural and historical connection of the Mi'kmaq people to Sable Island.

The results of this project would inform the future governance and advisory approach for a Sable Island national park reserve and would build practical working relationships with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia. This work would provide an important foundation for the participation of the Mi'kmaq in the planning and management of the national park reserve.

As we have heard, Sable Island is located in one of the largest offshore hydrocarbon basins in North America. I know that during the debate last Friday, concern was expressed about the future of Sable Island and the petroleum activities that may be permitted within this region. I believe that the Government of Canada and Nova Scotia have negotiated an approach to Sable Island that balances conservation and the fact that this is a large hydrocarbon development basin.

All petroleum-related activities in Nova Scotia's offshore, including on and around Sable Island, are administered under the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. As the preamble to this bill makes clear, section 4 of the accord act states that the act takes precedent over all legislation that applies to the offshore area, including Sable Island.

Therefore, it is into this legislative framework, put in place by previous parliaments, that we must fit this new national park reserve. To that end, through Bill S-15, we would amend the accord act to, for the first time, legally prohibit drilling from the surface of Sable Island. This is a point that should not be lost on this House because this would be of huge benefit to protecting this very unique piece of ecosystem and land that is so dear to all Canadians for the future. It is one of the core purposes of putting this bill forward to begin with. We would also put in place a buffer zone from the low-water boundary of the national park reserve out to one nautical mile where the drilling ban would also apply.

Many of my colleagues here have raised concern about the definition of “low-impact petroleum-related activities”. I think this is a fair discussion to have, because we want to make sure we get this right. Therefore, I will give a bit of background on my understanding of what this means, based on Senate committee testimony as well as discussions that the Nova Scotia government had, I believe, in the development of its bill related to this issue, because I think this should be considered, should this bill be supported by my colleagues and brought to committee stage.

Bill S-15 lists several low-impact petroleum-related activities that might be permitted on the island, including seismic. While some equate the word seismic with blasting and explosion, this is not the case in this situation. Low-impact seismic, as described by Mr. Stuart Pinks, chief executive officer of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, before the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, stated:

It is...emitting a sound source that, if it was done on the island, would travel down through the sand...through the rock formations, and some of the sound or energy waves are actually reflected back up. There are listening devices that will pick that up.

This activity was conducted on the island once before in the last several decades. In 1991, Mobil Oil Canada conducted seismic work on and around Sable Island. The company agreed to follow a strict code of practice that was developed in collaboration with Ms. Zoe Lucas, a long-time resident expert on Sable Island, and with the Green Horse Society, which is the leading environmental non-governmental organization for Sable Island.

In following this code of practice, industry made significant changes to its program design and implementation, including delaying the start of the program to avoid the peak periods for nesting birds, pupping harbour seals and foaling horses and changing the layout of seismic lines to avoid biologically rich areas.

Under the 1999 program, Mobil Oil Canada used two vibro-seismic vehicles on the island as sound sources on the north and south sides of the western third of Sable Island. They were restricted to the unvegetated outer beach areas. These were the sound sources. Sixty-two receiver lines were laid across the island for the purpose of receiving the sounds. In placing these receiver lines, no vehicle traffic was permitted on any vegetated terrain and all traffic on vegetation was on foot and restricted to the receiver lines. All the gear used during the program, including cables, geophones, batteries and so forth were carried into and out of the vegetated areas by personnel travelling only on foot.

Ms. Lucas concluded in a 2000 report that, “In general during the 1999 seismic program on Sable Island there was a very high compliance with the Code of Practice”. She also observed that “the [seismic] program had limited and short-term impact on Sable Island”. Furthermore, she concluded that compliance with the code of practice by the survey company “indicated that any group operating on the island could be expected to comply with similar guidelines”.

I would also point out that under the terms of the 2011 National Parks establishment agreement that was signed that year, Canada and Nova Scotia agreed that low impact exploratory work could continue to be authorized. When asked about the possibility of amending Bill S-15 to prohibit such activities by the Senate committee examining the bill, Mr. Leonard Preyra, minister of communities, culture and heritage with the Government of Nova Scotia, confirmed that having the potential to permit such activities, “is an important building block for the agreement itself. In a way, it's a deal breaker”.

During our debate in second reading, concern was expressed that Bill S-15 could set a precedent for other national parks with respect to continuing petroleum-related activity. This is clearly not the case with Bill S-15, as it does not amend the Canada National Parks Act to permit low impact petroleum activities in existing or future national parks. Rather we are amending the Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to restrict the board's current powers to authorize seismic activities on Sable Island to low impact activities.

For that reason, I would suggest that our government is not compromising the integrity of Canada's national park system, as has been suggested on several occasions by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

In creating new national parks, governments are often challenged to make tough decisions when it comes to allowing certain activities, be it mining roads in Nahanni, traditional land use activities, including hunting in Wapusk, or access to timber resources for local use in Gros Morne. In each case, we balance the need to maintain the integrity of the national park system, while trying to seize the opportunity to enhance the conservation of some of our special places, such as Sable Island.

The fact is that we have succeeded in negotiating a stronger conservation regime for Sable Island than currently exists and that is the goal here. It is to protect this area, it is to bring a greater degree of conservation and it is to understand that this indeed is one of the most special places we have in the country and we should be protecting it. That is the intent of the bill, full stop.

I would argue that our government is strengthening the integrity of our national park system and is working to significantly expand our national marine conservation area. It is because of this pragmatic approach in dealing with the various challenges inherent in creating new national parks that we are making tremendous progress.

For example, in 2006, our government established the 5,565 square kilometre Saoyú-?ehdacho National Historic Site in partnership with the Déline Land Corporation and the Déline Renewable Resources Council. This is the first northern cultural landscape commemorated by the Government of Canada, the first northern national historic site co-operatively managed by Parks Canada and an aboriginal group and the first protected area established under the Northwest Territories protected areas strategy.

In 2007, the Prime Minister joined with the Government of Ontario in announcing the creation of Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area. At more than 10,000 square kilometres, including the lake bed, islands and north shore lands, this is the largest freshwatrer marine protected area in the world.

In 2009, the House passed legislation resulting in the dramatic sixfold expansion of Nahanni National Park Reserve. For their efforts in achieving this decades-old dream, the minister of the environment, the Grand Chief of the Dehcho First Nation and the president of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society were awarded the prestigious Gold Medal by the Royal Canadian Geographical Society.

Last August, the Prime Minister joined with the leaders of the Sahtu Dene and Metis to announce the creation of Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada for the purpose of protecting the headwaters of the South Nahanni River. This conservation action will bring to a conclusion the work of so many to protect the Greater Nahanni Ecosystem.

In the 2011 Speech from the Throne, our government pledged to the people of Canada to create significant new protected areas. For example, Parks Canada is working to conclude negotiations to create a new national park on Bathurst Island in Nunavut and a new national park reserve in the Mealy Mountains of Labrador. Each of these new parks will bring ecological, social and economic benefits to aboriginal people and northern communities. Each new park will also shed light on a new and fascinating destination for visitors, providing an opportunity to diversify the local economy and to open the door to new and fascinating stories about these places.

We will continue our work to conclude the consultations and feasibility assessments for proposed national marine conservation areas in the ecologically rich waters of the southern Strait of Georgia in British Columbia and Lancaster Sound in Nunavut, and for a new national park reserve in the Thaidene Nene area of the east arm of Great Slave Lake. In each case we are working closely with the provincial and territorial governments as well as aboriginal peoples.

I want to assure the House that while our government continues to work to protect national parks and marine conservation areas, we are also working to promote urban conservation. We also want to bring the inspirational messages of such faraway places as Sable Island to urban populations because we want people in urban communities to be inspired to take action to protect their natural areas.

As we move to bring Sable Island under the Canada National Parks Act, our government stands to make a special contribution to urban conservation in Canada in establishing the country's first urban national park in Rouge Valley in the greater Toronto area. Rouge national urban park will be a unique concept that would include the conservation of natural and cultural assets, sustainable agriculture, opportunities for learning and a wide range of recreational activities.

Canada's national parks already make an important contribution to urban conservation, through the provision of clean air and water and the economic benefits in natural areas. For example, the protective watershed of Banff National Park supplies life-giving drinking water, provides recreational opportunities and supports farmers and industries well beyond its boundaries.

Parks Canada's places also provide sustainable ecosystems that are home to our migratory areas for many species, such as warblers and monarch butterflies in Point Pelee National Park. These species are in turn a key link in the ecological chain of urban areas.

While the provision of clean air and water and the ecological benefits of natural areas are an incredible contribution, in fact, they only make up a fraction of what Parks Canada provides to Canadians in urban conservation.

Arguably, Park Canada's largest role in this matter is to provide the opportunities of experiencing nature first-hand, an increased public awareness of sustainable development and natural heritage and an inspiring sense of pride in taking conservation action. This is a cornerstone of what it means to be Canadian.

There is a large body of research that demonstrates that exposure to natural environments helps people cope with stress, illness and injury and improved concentration and productivity.

As I wrap up, I encourage my colleagues opposite to support the bill. I am very encouraged by the high level of productive dialogue that we have had. I am very much looking forward to having a good discussion at committee on the bill, to review each of the concerns my colleagues have brought forward. I have tried to provide some clarity on those tonight. The minister will be speaking later as well.

I certainly hope this is an example of where we can work together within this place, do a wonderful thing for conservation in Canada and also protect one of the most sacred and ecologically-sensitive areas in our country, not just for now but for generations to come.

I am so proud of what the Nova Scotia government has done in this matter. I am so proud of what industry has done. Together, in the House, we can take the final step and make the Sable Island national park reserve happen.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, people at home probably are not used to seeing debates in the House that are not really incredibly partisan, but we may actually have a debate tonight about issues.

I thought her speech was very good in content and so, I have a content based question.

The parliamentary secretary rightly points out that there are a lot of concerns expressed by community and community organizations about the definition of “low-impact exploration” on the surface of Sable Island. I note that low-impact is not actually defined in the Canada National Parks Act. Nor is it defined in the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act.

We have to bring this to committee. We have to hear from witnesses what “low-impact exploration” means. At that point, would the government be open to a possible amendment to the act to maybe insert a definition into the act of what we exactly mean by “low-impact exploration”?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern about ensuring that we get the terminology right within the bill so we are setting a precedent for the long-term protection of this area and we can be very clear on what these activities mean.

The example I gave tonight within my speech was, I believe, one of the only instances of this activity occurring, so it gives me cause for hope that this could potentially happen within a very defined context and also see ecological benefits.

As my colleague said, I am looking forward as well to hearing from witness groups.

On the point of amendment, we have to ensure the Nova Scotia government and other partners that have been involved in the creation of the bill are comfortable with any changes that could or could not be made, given that there is a mirror agreement in place.

However, the discussion needs to start at committee. We need to hear from witnesses. I would certainly be amenable, as a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, to personally exploring what low-impact seismic activity means, then looking at it within the context of the legislation and moving forward from there.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the details that were given. It is important that we understand the possible impacts of the seismic activity on Sable Island. Parks Canada has told me that it has only one study. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could therefore share with the House how seismic activity can affect the environment and wildlife. There is real concern that this could be a precedent.

Could the member guarantee that this new park will not set a precedent and that the integrity of Canada's national parks will not be undermined, but protected?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, those are all excellent questions. Given the constraints of time, for the latter half of my colleague's question with regard to the precedent setting nature of this, I would direct her to check Hansard on the front end of my speech because I laid out quite a bit of text around that concern.

The member asked about the seismic activities. I did a little research in this regard. I have a couple of points.

First, the resident of Sable Island who I spoke about in my speech was involved in the follow-on study to the last seismic activities that happened at the park. A study done in that regard showed this activity could be done within a very tight framework with very strict guidelines and still preserve the ecological integrity of the island, which is the key component in ensuring the creation of our national parks.

Again, given the length of time that I have this evening, I am happy to speak to my colleague at committee about some of the other concerns she has about the potential ecological impact of seismic activity. We have some examples here, but I would probably spend five minutes reading them into the record and I am sure we will have witness groups that will come and talk about this at the committee stage as well.

I am certainly looking forward to addressing these concerns. I share her concerns and I look forward to hearing witness testimony at committee.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for her excellent work. I was a member of the environment committee for a number of years. I was a former national park warden in our parks in Alberta and had a tremendous opportunity there. I worked with some fantastic people in Parks Canada. It is a great agency. I was glad to represent Rocky Mountain House National Historic Site too and the wonderful work that has been done out there to commemorate our past and the work of David Thompson.

My question is for clarification on what the difference is between a national park reserve and a national park, the levels of protection. I know there are some games being played by some of the opposition in trying to confuse Canadians about what that is.

Clearly this is not going back to the way the Liberals, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, used to do things, which was to expropriate land for the creation of Kouchibouguac National Park where some 1,200 people were uprooted and basically thrown off their land indiscriminately. That is clearly not happening in this case. We have good examples like Grasslands National Park Reserve where it is a willing seller and willing buyer. These are the kinds of things that were brought in by a previous Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney. We have Pacific Rim National Park Reserve where those protections are afforded, yet there are still outstanding land claims and so on.

What kind of assurances can the parliamentary secretary provide to those who would seek claim there? Are people going to be disrupted the way they so rudely were so many years ago in the creation of some of our national parks?